I asked my wife this question and she laughed her ass off.

[shockey80]

I asked her, what do you think I would do if someone tried to force me to work without pay? She erupted in laughter because she knows me. She knows I would fucking die before I worked without pay.

Right now, some federal workers are refusing to work without pay. I am so proud of them. Unfortunately there is not enough of them.

Most Americans no longer have the courage to say this simple word, NO! That's the reason we have been slowly losing our way of life for decades.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. It's not that simple. Of course a federal worker who's not getting paid

might simply say, Fuck this, I quit, and try to get another job. Since the job market is pretty good these days that could be a possibility for some, though not for others. Air traffic controllers, for example, are well-paid and have excellent benefits, and would have a hard time finding another job with similar compensation. Also, if federal employees walk off the job without quitting they'll be fired, and if they do it in concert that's an illegal wildcat strike, because federal workers are prohibited from striking. Those workers will be banned from working for the federal government ever again. I think most of them are trying to hang in there in the hope that the shutdown will be over soon, and they'll get their back pay and can get on with their lives. If you are trying to support yourself and a family you may decide the risk of giving up everything in order to make a point is just too great. That would be a reasonable decision, IMO.

[shockey80]

4. It is that simple.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Would you really do it?

If you were an air traffic controller using highly specialized skills it took years to acquire and making over $100K a year plus great benefits, would you walk off the job because you didn't get a paycheck for two weeks or even a month, all the while knowing you'd get paid eventually and also that you had no chance of getting another job using your specialized skills and with the same salary and benefits? I wouldn't.

[Stonepounder]

49. Suppose you are just a few years from being vested in your pension? n/t

[Loki Liesmith]

58. Once you're employee as a government worker for a while

Your attractiveness to other employers goes down, especially in high skill jobs.

[EffieBlack]

62. That hasn't been my experience or the experience of the many other employers and employees I know

I've been and know many on both sides - employer and employee. Former government employees are very sought-after in the private sector.

Maybe the employers you're aware of drank the GOP "government workers are laztly bureaucrats" propaganda, but employers who really know their stuff know that hiring former government employees is usually a smart bet.

[Loki Liesmith]

66. A long time government lawyer

Will have a very difficult time getting a job at a high end law firm for the simple reason that they will find it difficult to put in the hours expected. They may already have kids, for example.

A government scientist will have trouble getting a tenure track appointment at a research university because they won’t have the publication record.

It doesn’t have anything to do with laziness. Simply the fact that certain tracks require certain specializations and taking one track can preclude other requirements.

[EffieBlack]

68. Lawyers and scientists don't represent all government employees...

But even your specific examples don't work.

For example, the problem with lawyers that that you raise has nothing to do with them working for the government. That would be the case with any older lawyer making a lateral move mid-career.

And an extensive publication record is not a prerequisite to being hired for a tenure-track position - the publication record is developed during their time on the tenure track.

These examples don't support your point.

[Loki Liesmith]

72. Never said they represented all or even a significant fraction of govt employees

These are effects on the margin, but they are very real *for that margin*. And that’s the problem. All these little marginal difficulties can add up, and they all contribute a little bit toward making government to industry or government to academia transitions problematic. Not impossible, but it’s dangerous to ignore edge effects, as they can have real systems-level consequences.

[Major Nikon]

81. Air traffic controllers have a skill set that doesn't translate to anything in the private sector

I've done a lot of hiring. The first thing pretty much all large companies look for is knowledge and experience that matches the job to be filled. The ones that don't match get filtered out before anything else is considered.

Quite often you are faced with hundreds if not thousands of applicants applying for a handful of positions. The vast majority of those will be filtered out before anyone who actually makes the hiring decision sees them. Many large companies pay 3rd parties to do this.

For the 6 figure jobs which are commensurate with what controllers make, there is virtually always a minimum education and experience requirement which must be met. If you don't have that, right away your resume goes in the circular file.

[EffieBlack]

84. You're talking about specific, highly specialized areas

You're arguing that certainly highly specialized jobs don't have an equivalent in the private sector. But that wasn't the claim the poster made. They claimed that government workers aren't "attractive" to private employers, as if government employees are less competent than their private sector counterparts.

[Major Nikon]

85. As was the poster you replied to

Highly skilled jobs in the government rarely translate to jobs in the private sector because the government does things the private sector can't. Certainly there are a few exceptions, but not many when you are talking about highly skilled jobs.

[EffieBlack]

88. There's a difference between a "highly skilled job" and a job exclusive to federal government

Many highly skilled jobs are available both in and out of government. Some jobs are unique to government - and can be both high skilled or otherwise.

If a specific job doesn't have an equivalent in the private sector, like ATC, that's one thing. But claiming that government employees are not "attractive" to private employers, particularly for high-skilled jobs, is not the same as saying certain jobs aren't available in the private sector. It's saying that government employees are considered less than their private sector counterparts - a common right wing smear. If that's not what the poster meant to say, they can clarify.

[Major Nikon]

93. Looks like that poster did clarify

What highly skilled jobs can you name that the federal government does on a large scale that do translate to the private sector?

Certainly the government has lawyers and scientists, but those are a tiny fraction of what we are talking about. There's somewhere around 15 thousand air traffic controllers. Highly skilled jobs that do translate well to outside the government are routinely contracted out for that very reason.

[EffieBlack]

102. Engineers, urban planners, human resource experts,, subject-matter/policy experts

budget and financial analysts, confidential assistants, economists, public affairs specialists, strategic communications experts, speechwriters, diversity and inclusion experts, procurement specialists, IT professionals, etc. etc. etc.

I've worked with hundreds, if not thousands of people who have seamlessly moved from high-skilled jobs in government into equivalent positions in the private sector (including corporate/business, nonprofits, and academia) and vice versa.

[Major Nikon]

103. How many economists and speechwriters do you think any given agency employs?

For many of the other things you mentioned like engineering and IT, the government contracts out most of those services thanks to the effort started by Saint Ronnie, precipitated under Clinton and greatly accelerated under Bush.

[EffieBlack]

105. Obviously many more than you think

and no, most of those positions are not contracted out. The government employees thousands - and in some cases tens of thousands of employees in each of these categories. I've worked directly in this area and know for a fact that this is the case. And this isn't just based on my observation.

For example, according to one source, in 2008, there were more than 4,000 economists working in federal government:

Where in the federal government do the economists work?
by Tyler Cowen January 17, 2011

1. Department of Labor, 1262 economists, 30.5 percent of the total, 1208 of those are at the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2. Agriculture, 533 economists

3. Treasury, 473

4. Commerce, 462

5. Defense, 225

6. Energy, 168

7. EPA, 163

8. HHS, 137

9. Transportation, 88

10. Interior, 86

11. FTC, 74

12. HUD, 62

13. Justice, 61

14. FDIC, 61

15. All others, 275. The total is 4130 economists in the Federal government, as of 2008, and I believe those numbers are not counting consultants.
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/01/where-in-the-federal-government-do-the-economists-work.html

It sounds like you're not very familiar with the federal government workforce but are making assumptions based on common, but not accurate conventional wisdom about federal government and federal government employees.

[Major Nikon]

115. So you are assuming all of those are federal employees and not contractors

But for the sake of argument let's say all of them are. You are assuming positions that have "economist" in their job title are "high skill" jobs. Someone in your link points out many at BLS don't even require a degree. According to OPM the duties "may be similar to those done by clerical or nonprofessional technical workers."

So right away there's doubt if your 4,000 number is all federal employees and even if they are, there's little doubt many, if not most of them aren't "high skill" jobs.

But for the sake of argument let's say there actually are 4,000 "economists" in the federal workforce and all of them are highly skilled, you are still talking about 0.2% of the 2 million strong federal workforce. So while 4,000 may sound like a lot, it's a tiny fraction.

It sounds like you're not very familiar with the federal government workforce but are making assumptions based on common, but not accurate conventional wisdom about federal government and federal government employees.

[EffieBlack]

116. I:m not assuming I'm stating a fact

You clearly don't know what you're talking about but continue to argue baseless assumptions, which I'll you to and not waste any more of my time trying to move you off of.

[Major Nikon]

117. You made several assumptions that I pointed out

Your source is nothing more than a web site quoting another source which you'd have to buy the book to even figure out where it comes from. It's about as far away from a fact as your baseless insults directed at me.

[EffieBlack]

118. Let's see:

YOU: What highly skilled jobs can you name that the federal government does on a large scale that do translate to the private sector?

ME: Engineers, urban planners, human resource experts,, subject-matter/policy experts budget and financial analysts, confidential assistants, economists, public affairs specialists, strategic communications experts, speechwriters, diversity and inclusion experts, procurement specialists, IT professionals, etc. etc. etc.

YOU: How many economists and speechwriters do you think any given agency employs?

ME: For example, according to one source, in 2008, there were more than 4,000 economists working in federal government ... (Quoting the source) "The total is 4130 economists in the Federal government, as of 2008, and I believe those numbers are not counting consultants"

YOU: So you are assuming all of those are federal employees and not contractors ...
for the sake of argument let's say there actually are 4,000 "economists" in the federal workforce and all of them are highly skilled, you are still talking about 0.2% of the 2 million strong federal workforce. So while 4,000 may sound like a lot, it's a tiny fraction.

So, you start by posing the proposition, without any basis or sourcing, that high skilled jobs in government "rarely translate to jobs in the private sector" and then demand list of high skilled jobs in federal government that do so translate. When a lengthy but partial list is provided to you, you zero in on two of the many jobs noted and insist on knowing how many in those professions work in federal government. When a number and source are provided to you, you - again without any facts - dismiss the source because it's in a book you don't have (?) and then you move the goalposts again and claim (laughably) that that one particular profession represents only a small fraction of the entire federal workforce, so the information you insisted on and received regarding high skilled government workers now means nothing.

All while presenting not one fact supporting your original argument that highly skilled federal government workers have difficulty transferring their skills to the private sector ...

Feel free to continue digging your little rabbit holes to distract from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about (which isn't an insult, simply a fact that you demonstrated quite clearly) - but don't expect me to jump into them with you.

[Major Nikon]

119. No let's not see

If you want to continue, be my guest, but once you start with the insults I'm out.

Cheers!

[PufPuf23]

108. I was a Fed from 1969 to 1985 and my experience was like yours

>edit out detail<

When went private sector, I did not initially grasp the value of the experience, training, and professional network from the Fed career.

[EffieBlack]

111. What a great career you've had. Thanks for sharing your experiences!

[B Stieg]

50. Thanks. I had forgotten this.

Since I see the shutdown as more of a lockout of labor to which a strike is a usual response.
Still, I think Sherman would at all this.

[Blue_true]

86. I was trying to think of why the premise given was wrong.

You summed up my thoughts perfectly. There are a lot of very specialized jobs that people can't easily walk away from and find comparable work.

[onecaliberal]

2. It is illegal for some of them to say no to working without pay. Not saying it's rigjt.

[shockey80]

3. Any worker who says they will not work for no pay can get fired.

Illegal has nothing too with it.

[onecaliberal]

7. For the TSA it IS illegal.

[2naSalit]

36. When you sign on with a federal agency

you agree to such conditions. It's partly a public trust issue/civil service obligation and partly a guarantee that you will be consistently compensated for that public service as is possible for the government to do so.

It doesn't always look right but it is certainly a different type of employment with different responsibilities than those found in the private sector. I've worked for several agencies and a lot of private sector employers, I preferred the public sector to private even though my activities were far more closely scrutinized.

[whopis01]

80. Go tell that to the Coast Guard

I’m sure they will be happy to explain to you what really happens if they say they won’t work because they aren’t getting paid.

[onecaliberal]

107. Exactly.

[KPN]

52. That has never been tested as far as I can tell.

I’m not sure refusing to work without pay equates to a strike — which is refusing to work without some additional benefit over and above pay the employees are currently receiving.

[Major Nikon]

83. Once

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_Air_Traffic_Controllers_Organization_(1968)

[KPN]

89. Nope. They weren't being required to work

without remuneration. The federal government in this shutdown has intentionally failed to meet its obligation to pay workers for their labor. This situation has never been tested in court or politically. There is no way Benedict Donald would prevail — in court or in public opinion — in the face of a mass walkout on the basis of no pay-no labor.

[Major Nikon]

91. The law doesn't apply to individuals, it applies to unions

So if a union organized a strike on behalf of workers not getting paid, they would be decertified in accordance with the law, which has already been tested.

[KPN]

92. Workers don't need a union to stage a walkout.

[Major Nikon]

94. True, but in that case no laws would be violated

[KPN]

95. I don't follow your point about no law being broken

Are you talking about Taft-Hartley? The federal government is breaking the terms of its implied contract with its employees. Same goes for the Fair Labor Standards Act which applies to federal employees except with regard to overtime pay for salaried as opposed to wage employees.

[Major Nikon]

96. Post #2 is talking about employees

On the employee side the law only applies to unions.

On the employer side I have no doubt a number of laws are being violated in addition to the ones you mentioned.

[KPN]

97. So you agree then that employees can walk out

given they are not being paid and Taft-Hartley does not apply? That’s what i’m saying. I retired from federal government. I received a letter of appointment for every position I held throughout my career which stipulated the pay I would receive for performing that job.

[Major Nikon]

98. I would agree it doesn't apply if the union had nothing to do with it

[KPN]

100. So what was the "Once" about?

[Major Nikon]

101. Do I need to repeat myself?

[KPN]

113. Haha. Sorry, but apparently. You said it WAS tested once.

I maintain it wasn’t. Entirely different circumstances.

[Major Nikon]

114. Then we disagree

Possibly because we were looking at it from two different ways.

[Major Nikon]

82. It's not illegal for the employee, it's illegal for a federal union to organize a strike

The penalty is the union can get decertified. That's exactly what happened to PATCO.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

5. That's wonderful that you have the courage and resources to quit a job unexpectedly and either

continue to help your household while you find a new one, or constantly have options in your back pocket. That's an unusual situation to be in.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

8. Yep. It's easy to sit at the computer and tell others what they should be doing

when you're not faced with having to make that decision for yourself.

[shockey80]

10. I have made that decision.

I was forced to work without pay years ago. I said no and every other co worker laid down like fucking sheep and said yes. I had to fight alone. They told me they would fire me. It was terrifying, the stress dam near killed me. In the end I won. Fate took over, It was amazing.

Everything I feared would happen, did not happen. What happened is things turned out for the better. It was one of the most important lessons in life I have ever learned. Sometimes you have to risk everything.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

16. "Fate took over, It was amazing."

This...sounds like something that isn't exactly replicable or scalable.

[2naSalit]

38. +1

[shockey80]

9. There is this thing called, calling in sick.

Find a doctor who will protect you. I do not have options in my back pocket. If I lost my job it would hurt. I would lose my health benefits. Only one thing is for sure with me. I would never, under any circumstances work without pay.

I would find a way. I would not fall victim to fear.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

12. "Find a doctor who will protect you." That sounds interesting! What does that look like?

If that's part of "finding a way," walk us through what that would entail.

[cwydro]

60. Yeah, doesn't exactly sound like he's the big brave warrior he pretends to be lol.

More like he found a doctor to lie (unethical), and he told his employer he had some ailment or other.

Not exactly standing tall.

[EffieBlack]

70. Maybe you can find a doctor who will claim you have bone spurs

Like another big brave warrior we know ...

[EffieBlack]

11. So easy to say "I would NEVER do that!" when you're not in their

Weren't you here last week doubling and tripling down on your claim that federal workers were slaves because they were working without pay (even though they're not working without pay - they're not being paid on time - big difference) - and now you're back accusing them of being cowardly and weak because they don't do what you're sure YOU would do if only you were in their shoes ...

What's your point with all of this?

[shockey80]

13. Yawn.

[EffieBlack]

14. Apparently, you're too groggy to realize we can see you ...

[ooky]

15. They are probably fearful that President "Pull Wings off of Flies" will fire them and

take away their pensions they have been working toward all their working lives. And they would be right to be fearful of this.

[FSogol]

17. Every single salaried employee has done work for free.

You think Federal employees would throw away good positions over a shutdown? They'll hang in there and hope it restarts soon. Every other time it has shutdown, they've received back pay. The House already has a bill to give them the back pay.

[shockey80]

19. Yes, and they will have do it over and over and over for fucking ever.

[EffieBlack]

21. They're not actually working for free or without pay

They will be paid. The problem is that they're not being paid on their regular pay schedule and don't know when their paychecks will resume.

The quitting will make sure they also don't get paid moving forward. That would be counterproductive and self-inflict even greater hardship.

But if it's not your paycheck on the line, it's sure easy to sit at your computer and call them slaves, cowards, weak, etc. I'm just wondering why anyone insists on demeaning them like this ... over and over.

[FSogol]

29. I meant in a more general way, beyond the federal govt.

Doctors, nurses, engineers, and many others on salaries, end up working more than what is prescribed to aid clients, patients, to move projects along, etc. They often do this with no guarantee of bonuses, promotion, or recognition. Many of the pros in the Federal work force are the same way and are staying on the job.

[EffieBlack]

33. I understand

[shockey80]

18. Like I said, Right now some federal workers are refusing to work without pay.

What would happen if all of them did that? The fucking shutdown would end tomorrow. Why are you attacking me for having courage?

[FSogol]

20. LOL: You wrote this to yourself: "Why are you attacking me for having courage?"

[shockey80]

22. Oops, now that's funny.

[FSogol]

26. Big Brother: "Stop hitting yer-self" n/t

[shockey80]

28. I'm just trying to rock the boat.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

24. Collective action is not about individual courage, so you continuing to tout your own misses the

point. Collective action is about organizing, which as you yourself acknowledged is fucking hard. This country touts individual courage as an ideal, then undermines it at every turn through economic, social and political oppression. It also gives a friendly nod to collective work, but only in certain circumstances, such as religious or fraternal. So for people to fully realize their own individual courage and the strength they could gain if they exercised that courage and acted collectively is enormously difficult.

tl;dr: We're not attacking you for having courage, we're telling you you're missing the point and also sounding like a dick as you do so.

[guillaumeb]

39. Well said.

Life is not the Norma Rae movie. Getting fired for insubordination is serious.

[EffieBlack]

25. You have shown absolutely no courage.

But you've shown some other qualities ...

[shockey80]

30. Who are you, my mother.

[EffieBlack]

34. Obviously not, thank the Lord.

[cwydro]

61. Sounds like he cowered in his (fake) sick bed, while his co-workers faced the music daily.

Color me not impressed.

[cwydro]

65. Sitting behind a keyboard slamming others is the act of a coward.

Courage, my arse.

[LAS14]

23. I'm guessing some of these people would keep working...

... even if it weren't illegal not to because they are doing things that others of us depend on so much. This is assuming, of course, that they're getting back pay when the government opens.

[shockey80]

27. I agree, I can't hold that against them. Very good point.

[stonecutter357]

31. Cool Story, Bro , !

[guillaumeb]

32. Federal workers are governed by the Code of Ethical Conduct.

And many are working under specific Agency agreements if they are unionized.

Speaking as a retired Federal worker, and a Union representative with over 33 years experience, refusing an order is treated as insubordination.

And anyone with experience in the field knows that Arbitrators treat insubordination as a very serious violation.

[shockey80]

35. Scary, refusing an order, BOO!

[guillaumeb]

37. Scary, getting fired and losing a job.

Sorry, it is not that simple.

I have no idea what experience you have representing workers, but most of the workers I have known and represented did not consider getting fired to be a trivial matter.

[shockey80]

40. Being forced to work without pay is also not a trivial matter.

I applaud the federal workers who are refusing to work without pay. I applaud the federal workers who continue to work because people could die if they stopped working. I do not agree with any federal worker who is working without pay simply because of fear.

I refused orders when I was in the Army and I got in trouble. I have never regretted it. They were stupid orders.

[guillaumeb]

41. Arbitrators treat orders as paramount.

The exception is that any illegal or unsafe order can be refused, but the burden of proof is on the employee in those cases.

Again, speaking from long experience in the field.

[2naSalit]

42. Think of is as quasi-military in how personnel are handled.

Public Service, which is what every federal worker does, is crucial to the functioning of all those services we expect from our government and have worked and fought for years to bring to reality. In many cases, people will die if the civil servants did not come to work. And guillaumeb is right, it takes organization to get a large number of people to engage in collective action.

Your stance is ill-conceived and lacking the understanding of the parameters of public service and the responsibilities public servants shoulder for your/our benefit as citizens. trust me, you want those responsibilities to be there and adhered to in order for the public services to work for the good of all and oversight to minimize corruption and other failures.

[shockey80]

43. I served in the army, I also worked for the federal government (UNION) for many years.

I now work with the disabled. My stance is based on over 40 years of experience. All I have done is serve the American people.

[FakeNoose]

44. You guys know that Trump wants to fire them all and bring in private contract workers, right?

He wants to replace the TSA and air-traffic controllers with private contract labor as soon as possible. Then he'll fire everyone working in the National Parks and do the same thing. Same with the IRS, Social Security, the Census workers, and every other big group. Anyone who refuses to "work without pay" now is making it easier for Trump to fire them all.

You may not believe me, but it has been the secret objective of the Libertarians (you know, the Koch Brothers and their billionaire buddies?) for the last 20 years to do exactly that. We're not that far away from all of this happening. A lot of this info is in Jane Mayer's book "Dark Money."

[shockey80]

46. Exactly.

People are not seeing the big picture. Thank you for your post.

[erronis]

57. This needs to be understood by all of us, and the remaining real democratic leaders in this country.

While I totally agree with the position that government employees are being held hostage by the libertarian (or worse) oriented trumputine, I also agree with the position that individual self-preservation is very strong and compelling.

We are a "representative" government altho the representation has been deliberately sabotaged. Our system is supposed to look out for the people. Individual strikes might seem like a good idea but the personal penalty is likely to be severe. Either getting our government back in shape or much larger actions will be necessary.

[dameatball]

79. I'm pretty sure you missed the point of FakeNoose's post entirely. By that I mean walking off the

job is exactly what they would like. Easier to privatize. That's how I interpret it.

[FakeNoose]

112. Yes that's what I meant

Sorry I didn't see this reply earlier. The libertarian billionaires (Koch brothers and others) would love to do it, and they have enough people working for Trump now to make it happen. I don't believe Trump has any such "grand design" because he's not capable, but he'll go along with the big money boys.

A big strike of the federal employees would be playing right into their hands.

Just sayin'

[backtoblue]

45. I'm the same way nt

[shockey80]

47. You must be an old school American like myself.

[backtoblue]

48. I was raised by some hard working country folk

Taught me that I'm worth every penny that I worked for and not to let anyone take that away from me.

I learned young.

[shockey80]

51. I knew it. Hello friend.

[backtoblue]

54. Hiya back friend.

[llmart]

53. On some level I agree with you about having strong, core principles.

That is truly admirable. I can't say I'd go so far as to refusing to work without pay. However, I have posted before that if I were a border agent and was told to remove a child from her mother, I would NEVER follow those orders and I would quit my job and live under a bridge if I had to. I'm a mother. I'm a grandmother.

That Time cover with the little girl with the red shoes broke me on some level. If I remember correctly, the border agent in the picture looked female.

Guess I'm old school American also.

[shockey80]

56. Yes you are.

[Jopin Klobe]

55. "Most Americans no longer have the courage to say this simple word, NO!" ...

... that's because the filthy rich have eviscerated the Unions ...

... Unions are the only way that the majority of normal people can have strength over the filthy rich ...

... as a smart man once said ...

... "United we stand ... Divided we fall" ...

... that is one main truth of human existence and survival ...

... unless we band together against outside divisions, we will never be able to realize our individual rights ...

... that's why our country's political bible starts, "We the People" ...

... they're stealing it from us ... and doing it exponentially quicker ...

[Hoyt]

59. Not forever, but it's part of the job for government workers.

Most know they will get paid, they like their job, and will sacrifice for a time. That’s why we owe them.

I know some of the lower paid workers are really hurting, so it’s definitely time to end this thing.

[IronLionZion]

63. Trump would run into a school unarmed to save kids from a shooter

it's very easy to say what courageous things you would do when you're not in such a position.

People gloated a lot when I lost my income as a contractor during a work stoppage. My family pressured me pretty hard to quit and I said no because I'm no quitter. It's easier to quit if you have another job lined up to join. It's much harder to be unemployed for a few months applying for jobs you don't qualify for at lower salary than what you were getting and keep being told you don't have the right experience.

It's only easy when it's someone else going through it.

[shockey80]

74. You need to read all the posts.

[IronLionZion]

78. I don't

[cwydro]

64. Hey, you sound like a really tough leader-type dude!

Why don’t you go organize those people. Get em fired up!

I really wanna watch when you tell the Coasties they have no guts.

Check in and let us know how it goes!

[IronLionZion]

71. +1. And tell all the federal law enforcement officers they are weak with no guts

and should just quit and find new jobs

[cwydro]

77. Yeah, and forget the Coasties - he can start with the Secret Service!

[EllieBC]

99. It's always easy to hulk up on forums.

Yeah I’d quit! And lose my pension and benefits but hell yes I’d make a point!

Sure you would.

And that’s why OP is here and not telling the Coast Guard this. Internet dick is always the biggest.

[violetpastille]

104. +1

"Internet dick is always biggest."

You said it!

[EffieBlack]

106. Why don't these "Why they oughtta" big talkers organize their OWN general strike

I'm sure a general strike by private industry employees to show support for and solidarity with their federal government brothers and sisters would surely have a huge impact on the economy and trigger an immediate response that would lead to a prompt conclusion to the shutdown.

Funny how they never offer to strike themselves, though, isn't it?

[EllieBC]

109. Of course they won't do it themselves!

They weren't suggesting they be the example. They are volunteering you to be the example. See how that works?

[EffieBlack]

110. Like the "I don't need no danged union!" types who refuse to join the union or pay dues

but happily lap up the better pay and great benefits the union fights to get for all employees.

[radical noodle]

67. I have worked for no pay

for a small, struggling business that belonged to a dear friend. He didn't ask me to do it, I just did. I would do it again even though it was a hardship. That was far different from what's happening now, but sometimes these things are the best course of action for a particular person. We shouldn't judge those who continue to work as not having courage. It might, for them, be the most courageous thing they can do.

[pdsimdars]

69. General Strike . . . I saw one British MSNBC contributor said we don't have that word over here

but we need it. EVERYONE doesn't show up for work and that shows the establishment the power WE have. It stops the whole machine when everyone does not work.

[yewberry]

73. That's a pretty profound misunderstanding of 'essential' there.

If my coworkers and I decided to participate in a wildcat strike, yes, everyone would have to stop and listen. People couldn't get to work, kids couldn't go to school, entire communities would be isolated, goods and services would become instantaneously more expensive or unavailable, all kinds of bad stuff would happen pretty quickly.

What also happens is that patients can't get to doctors or hospitals. Police, firefighters & EMTs can't get to their jobs.

There's a reason some jobs are considered essential. People could get hurt. People could die. Ask your wife how much should laugh if it cost someone in your family their life.

[shockey80]

75. You need to read all the posts.

[yewberry]

76. I did. nt

[GusBob]

87. Not funny at all

I have volunteered to work without reimbursement in my position as a hell care provider

Unfortunately others feel as you do and my part of the clinic is shuttered

Which means real people are really suffering

Ha-ha, not

[milestogo]

90. Choice between gas and baby formula

A young woman who lives in my apartment building works for the TSA and the landlord said they will "work with her" on the rent.

She said she has a co-worker who commutes and is a single parent. That person needs to keep paying for gas, daycare, and formula as well as food for herself. She said if it comes to a choice between gas and baby formula - well what kind of choice is that? You miss work, you lose your job. You neglect your child, you lose your child.